Say Anything Blog

This argument from design is quite relevent to the modern debate about Intelligent Design.  Note the honest adherence to the principles of reason.  Reason alone provides solid arguments from that which is plainly observable by all.  Funny how naturalistic theism is regarded by so many as religious or religion…

“When a complex combination of heterogeneous phenomena is found to agree with the possibility of a future act, which was not contained beforehand in any of these phenomena in particular, this agreement can only be comprehended by the human mind as a kind of pre-existence, in an ideal form, of the future act itself, which transforms it from a result into an end—that is to say, into a final cause. (Paul Jones)

Example:

“The hull of a ship, masts, sails, anchor, rudder, compass, chart, have no necessary connection, and in relation to their physical causalities are heterogeneous phenomena.  The future use of a ship is not contained in any one of them, but is possible through their combination.  This combination in the fully equipped ship has no interpretation in our rational intelligence except in the previous existence of its use in human thought and purpose. (emph. added) The use of the ship, therefore, is not the mere result of its existence, but the final cause of its construction” (John Miley).

The preceding explanation of design made more sense than any modern ID advocate I have read.  (Neiman may appreciate Mr. Miley’s statement.) The presence of intelligence and design throughout our universe bespeaks an Intelligent Designer as a first cause.  And, let’s be honest—from a strictly rational observation, this argument is no more Christian than evolution is demonic.

P.S.  The darwinists have fairly defined ID as philosophy, while at the same time exempted their own philosophical perspective from such a classification and scientific scrutiny.  They argue ID belongs in the classroom of philosophy but at the same time accept and practice methodological naturalism as the only legitimate scientific method.  At the very least this behavior is dishonest.